Saturday, January 24, 2009

Excuse Me For Not Jumping On the Wagon

In the not too distant past, I used to blog about politics. I gave that up, as it just wasn't much fun. After all, blogging is something that I do for my own amusement, not as a career (or even a bona fide hobby). During my foray into political topics, I was often asked what I thought of (then) President George W. Bush. I reluctantly informed my readers that I could not speak critically of my Commander In Chief...It is, quite literally, against the law for me to do so. Now that he is no longer my CIC, I can speak about him in whatever manner I see fit. There's only one problem with that: Why should I even bother?

The press in our nation have maligned Bush beyond any reasonable degree. To what end? They've hinted made it painfully obvious that they intend to report only such news as supports their left-leaning agenda. Every mistake that our nation's President made was plastered on television screens, websites, newspapers and magazine covers. You'd think that misspeaking was comparable to high crimes and treason. There's nothing that I can say that will benefit the situation one bit. I will, however, give a brief synopsis of my opinion of "W." What the heck; it might be fun. I will not, however, jump on the bandwagon of blaming all of my (and the nation's) woes on Bush. I will also not be joining in the orgy of glorifying the 44th President. Once again, the media doesn't need any help in that department.

My opinion of Bush is quite irrelevant, but I'll give it nonetheless. I'll also point out that a lack of condemnation does not constitute endorsement. I've been labeled a "Bush bot" in the past for failing to join the frenzied flinging of curses and epithets regarding our President's policies. I'm not his biggest fan, and certainly not a blind follower of party lines. Without further ado, here's the lowdown:

I believe that George W. Bush is not the worst President that we've ever had. Calling that one is a tough choice (Carter springs to mind, but he's got some keen competition). I do, however, think that he squandered away some incredible opportunities. Prior to the 2006 debacle, he had a Republican led Congress on his "side." He could have used that opportunity to crack down on the joke that is our southern border. Illegal immigration is W's biggest failure. He had eight years to fix it, and didn't do anything about it. He even tried to sell us a recycled load of amnesty, eagerly supported by liberals everywhere. Another popular website even began calling him "Vicente W. Bush." Once the Dems gained a majority in Congress, it was too late. Our southern border will remain as porous as can be, and crime, disease, and social handout overload will continue to rise as a result.

Invading Iraq with no plan for follow-on operations was a mistake. Hell, Rumsfeld wanted to invade with a single Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)! Can I honestly say that invading Iraq at all was a mistake? No; I cannot. As best I can tell, Bush acted on the intel he was presented with, and I'm not only referring to intel from American sources. Even the Brits, the Russians, and the Israelis were singing the same tune. He did, however, pounce a little too eagerly on that grenade. In the past, whenever Saddam was off his meds and got froggy, sending a few Tomahawk cruise missiles his way did the trick for a while. Leaving him in power kept a certain amount of stability in the region. Are the Iraqi people better off without him? Most certainly, but that's not our problem, or, at least it wasn't our problem prior to March of 2003. We could have bombed terrorist training facilities and suspected WMD locations just as easily from afar. As an aside though, let's not forget that regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy on Clinton's watch, not Bush's.

Allowing the press to gain political momentum and generally bash him was a mistake. Bush has said that he didn't fire back at the media because it "wasn't important." I disagree. He should have fought back at every turn. He should have squashed the "tax cuts for the rich" garbage at his earliest convenience. He should have ensured that charges were filed against the responsible parties at the New York Times for divulging classified information, and interfering in a federal investigation. It damned sure was important, and he blew it. As evidenced by Obama voters themselves, the truth doesn't drive public opinion anymore, the media does.

George W. Bush is no longer our sitting President and, to the confusion of Obama voters everywhere, there has been no dramatic change in anybody's life because of it (unless your last name is Bush or Obama). At Obama's inauguration, many of the high-class, well informed supporters booed Bush. I wasn't really surprised, but it was still disgusting. This was further evidence of the left's reliance upon emotion. I believe that overall, Bush is a good man, and he was truly passionate about what he was doing. He was far from the conservative leader that most of us wanted, and he made mistakes, but he is not the cause of all of this nation's woes. The cause of most of our problems is in an entirely different branch of government. That's right, and their approval rating is even lower than Bush's.

There; that's it. Some folks were probably expecting a flaming rant of epic proportions. I apologize if this is not as vile as you were hoping for. You can get that sort of thing on the liberal blogs, or the news channels, if you're so inclined.